Trump’s Tariff Supreme Court Case Is Already Going Off the Rails

Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs were met with overwhelming skepticism from the Supreme Court Wednesday, as conservative justices joined their liberal colleagues in  expressing serious concerns over the legality of the president’s actions.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch appeared entirely unconvinced by the government’s defense of Trump’s tariffs while sharply questioning U.S. Solicitor General John D. Sauer, the president’s former personal lawyer. 

Barrett asked Sauer how Trump could possibly impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, which allows the president to regulate commerce in case of a national emergency but doesn’t actually include the word “tariff.” 

Barrett, whom Trump nominated to the high court, also pressed Sauer for a single other example of Congress conferring its tariff authority to the president—but the government’s lawyer couldn’t summon an actual response. 

Gorsuch asserted that Congress would never wrest its tariff power back from the executive, suggesting that the Trump administration’s interpretation of the IEEPA was “a one-way ratchet towards the gradual accretion of power to the executive branch.” He also pressed Sauer on what constituted an emergency under the IEEPA, and even got the president’s lawyer to agree that climate change would be a suitable excuse for invoking the rule. 

Roberts took a turn grilling Sauer too, implying that Trump’s tariffs had overstepped Congress’s authority because the “vehicle is imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress.”

“So, to have the president’s foreign affairs power trump that basic power for Congress, seems to me to kind of at least neutralize between the two powers, the executive power and the legislative power,” Roberts continued. 

One expert noted to CNN that Sauer repeatedly used the word “tariff” as a verb, in order to avoid using the word “tax.”

Roberts also noted that IEEPA had never been used to impose tariffs. “It does seem like that’s major authority and the basis for the claim, seems to be a misfit,” he said. 

Democrats have argued for months about how to win young men back into their coalition. New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani won them over by a massive margin Tuesday night. 

Early exit polls from NBC had Mamdani winning 18- to 29-year-old men in New York City by a staggering 40 points, easily eclipsing opponent Andrew Cuomo. 

Fellow Democratic electees also made inroads with young men, but not by nearly as much. Abigail Spanberger won about six in 10 young men in Virginia, according to the AP voter poll,  and Mikie Sherrill won just over half of young men in New Jersey. 

While Mamdani has the advantage of a much bluer electorate—and of course, being a man—his democratic socialist message is markedly more progressive than that of Sherrill or Spanberger. It should come as no surprise that a group that doesn’t expect to ever own a home or pay off their student loans was attracted to a message centered around affordability in the most expensive city in the country. 

Democratic congressional leadership has been lukewarm on Mamdani, at best, but they would be foolish to ignore that Mamdani and his policies resonated deeply with young men. And while they’re quick to point out that what works in New York City won’t work everywhere in the United States, the very issue Mamdani highlighted is a problem everywhere in the U.S. Young men—and most of the city—didn’t respond positively to Mamdani because he made empty platitudes about going back to “kitchen table issues.” They responded so positively because Mamdani presented real, progressive solutions to the most pervasive issue in their lives. 

Federal immigration officers are finding a lot of joy in causing mass misery.

Department of Homeland Security agents have illustrated a remarkable disregard for public safety while deploying tear gas and pepper spray to advance the Trump administration’s agenda, according to court documents obtained by the Chicago Tribune.

But in some situations, agents tasked with crowd control went far beyond the realm of plausible deniability, apparently finding genuine enjoyment out of injuring and assaulting people.

Last month in Chicago, agents used tear gas in residential areas “multiple times without audible warnings,” court documents said, surprising families with the painful chemical irritant. Footage taken by Customs and Border Patrol illustrates the extent of their own gleeful violence, with one agent at one point telling another that they should throw the tear gas canisters “for fun.”

“The gas did not help agents leave; instead, they weren’t able to leave in their cars after using the gas because it overwhelmed them so much that they had to flee the block on foot,” the court documents read. “There was no threat when gas was deployed.”

The state-sanctioned violence has been nearly nonstop in Chicago over the last few months. Just last week, federal agents allegedly tear-gassed a group of school-age children in a residential Chicago neighborhood on their way to a Halloween parade.

But Chicago isn’t the only city suffering. Needless DHS encroachment has become an issue in just about every city across the country that has dared to oppose Donald Trump’s immigration agenda. In some cases, ICE’s presence has made some cities across the country significantly less safe than they were before the feds showed up.

In Portland, Oregon, mistaken friendly fire between federal agents last month escalated their retaliation against anti-ICE protesters, resulting in officers firing a barrage of rubber bullets into a crowd that also contained local law enforcement, according to the city’s police commander.

Following Tuesday night’s resounding victory for Democrats across the country, Donald Trump came up with a long to-do list Wednesday morning that he thinks is the solution to what ails Republicans. And bizarrely, during his postelection meltdown, he claimed that Americans need ID to buy groceries.

The speech to Senate Republicans began somewhat normally, with the president arguing that Republicans should “do what they have to do and terminate the filibuster,” claiming that no legislation would be passed for “three and a quarter years” if the procedure remains.

“We should start, tonight, with ‘the country’s open,’ congratulations, then we should pass voter ID, we should pass no mail-in voting, we should pass all of the things we want to pass to make our elections secure,” Trump continued, calling for an end to the government shutdown.

“All we want is voter ID, you go to a grocery store, you have to give ID, you go to a gas station, you give ID, but for voting, they want no voter ID. It’s only for one reason, and it’s because they cheat. We would pass that in 15 minutes,” Trump ranted, seeming to slur his words at times. “If you don’t get it, you’ll never pass that. You’ll never talk about mail-in ballots. Mail-in ballots make it automatically corrupt.”

Trump’s claim that grocery stores and gas stations require identification shows just how out of touch he is with the average American (and may be a sign of cognitive decline). The president’s crusade against voter identification also belies the fact that many Democratic victories Tuesday night came in states that already require it, such as Virginia and Georgia. And complaining about mail-in ballots makes no sense considering Trump has voted that way in the past and that Republicans were encouraging people to vote by mail earlier this week.

Meanwhile, his demand to end the filibuster has been resisted by Senate Republicans because they know that Democrats could soon take control of Congress and push through their own legislative priorities. Will Republicans see the president’s demands as extreme, or will they immediately fall in line and attempt to make him happy?

Republican lawmakers in Kansas killed a weeks-long effort to expedite redrawing their state’s congressional map, delaying President Donald Trump’s push to gerrymander red states ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Republicans needed to secure a two-thirds majority approval in both chambers to call a special legislative session—circumventing Democratic Governor Laura Kelly’s refusal to do so—but it looks like they couldn’t quite manage it.

House Speaker Dan Hawkins announced Tuesday night that Republicans would not vote to call a special legislative session. “Planning a Special Session is always going to be an uphill battle with multiple agendas, scheduling conflicts and many unseen factors at play,” he said in a statement.

Republicans had planned to target Kansas’s 3rd congressional district, which has been led by Representative Sharice Davids, a Democrat, since 2019. But it seems that the state’s GOP lawmakers just couldn’t get behind the mid-cycle redistricting effort that Trump had demanded, with some concerned redistricting could make red areas more competitive.

State Senate President Ty Masterson quickly promised that redistricting would be “a top priority” when the legislature resumed in January next year.

Davids, who has reportedly been eyeing a Senate run, said in a statement: “We’ve won the first round in this fight against gerrymandering.”

This isn’t the first of Trump’s redistricting schemes to fall apart in a red state. In Indiana, Governor Mike Braun happily called a special legislative session last week, but it still seems that mid-cycle redistricting lacks crucial Republican support. And in California, a Republican fretted that redistricting elsewhere could end up costing him his seat.